Anthony Wright v. Dr. Darby, No. 17-6764 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6764 ANTHONY LAMAR WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, formerly #250258, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. DARBY, in his individual capacity; DR. RANDOLPH, in her individual capacity; DR. GRANT, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF STRICKLAND, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF KOON, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF LEON LOTT, in his individual capacity; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS; SERGEANT HOLLEY; DR. CHAVES, in his individual capacity; CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; SHERIFF AL CANNON; NURSE HERNDON, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:16-cv-00218-TLW) Submitted: September 14, 2017 Decided: September 21, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lamar Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, GRIFFITH, FREEMAN & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, PAULEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James Grant Long, III, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Lamar Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations and dismissing Wright’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action as against all Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 20, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on June 14, 2017. Because Wright failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Wright’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment against Defendant Dr. Grant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
